Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marian Shields Robinson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Shields Robinson[edit]

This article makes no claim to notability other than being the mother-in-law of a President. I'd nominate for speedy deletion but I possibly see this being contested, so I am taking it here. TM 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I would argue that this is stretching notability by association a bit, but then Hillary Clinton's mom also has an article. Subject fails WP:BIO completely, that's for sure. §FreeRangeFrog 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per Tavix below. Not really meant to say "smite her from Wikipedia", I just didn't think of an already existing list where she would fit. No prejudice to promoting to standalone article if she becomes notable for some reason (other than association). §FreeRangeFrog 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-sourced and subject is notable enough for mine. Will obviously expand as she will have a reasonable amount of media coverage over the next four years. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish the article were a little more developed already, but she's played a significant role in the Obama rise to the presidency, and her moving into the White House definitely makes her noteworthy. Elivera M. Doud is a good precedent for an article of a parallel circumstance. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a public figure herself, resident of the White House~~, parent of two other public figures~~.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this and how notability is not inherited.--TM 02:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair cop; adjusted.--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Family of Barack Obama per past precedents. Almost every member of Barack's family has a section there, and I don't see why his mother-in-law should be any different. Tavix (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tavix. Subject fails WP:BIO on her own, and notability is not inherited, but a mention on the family page is acceptable. Also, in reference to the struck through !vote from FreeRangeFrog above, that article is also up for deletion. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument to keep. Firestorm ^Talk 05:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix's argument to Merge makes sense to me. She is certainly not notable on her own. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama's list of related deletions. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tavix - no independent notability, as it isn't transmissible. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is sourced. The American public has decided that relatives of public figures and residents of the White House are notable , this is not the place to question that. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the cited New York Times article ("Obama’s Mother-in-Law to Move Into the White House") points out, she's living with the President in the White House, which in itself is pretty notable. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could be inclined to agree that actually moving into the White House with her daughter and son-in-law is probably sufficient notability in and of itself to merit an article, but there really aren't that many sources present in the article that are actually about her. A merge to Family of Barack Obama is sufficient here. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'"Mdfbe"' to Family of Michelle Robinson ObamaI suggest this article be incorporated into Michelle Obama's geneological information. Tumaini Martin Kamaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.17.96 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mother-in-law of the U.S. President, lives in the White House and has been pretty widely reported on. Seems to meet all notability standards.--Sloane (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not spread to every relative or inlaw of a politician. There is no "Living in the WH makes you automatically notable" guideline, anymore than living in a European palace automatically makes all relatives and hangers-on notable. Fails WP:BIO. No refs to show notability independently of who Gramma is related to.Give her a mention in the First Lady's article. Edison (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There's also no "notability is entirely established by guidelines" guideline. Or policy, for that matter. It's a fair position to take that a subject of New York Times reporting and a resident of the White House is not notable, but in doing so, you're not using the notability guidelines to make your argument. Neither am I. -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you think notability should spread to every relative of a politician or not is completely irrelevant. The case is that Robinson has in fact received heaps of coverage and has become a notable figure. Which is normally on of the the only relevant measure of one's notability we use. --Sloane (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heaps is right: "Meet the first grandmother"; Chicago Sun-Times, November 16, 2008, "Granny diplomacy"; Boston Globe, December 30 2008, even "Obama, una suocera alla Casa Bianca? Si, per le nipotine" (Obama, a mother-in-law at the White House? Yes, for the grandkids); RAI (Italy), November 12, 2008. Establishing notability independently of one's relatives is not a requirement of WP:BIO, and WP:INHERIT advises against using inheritance arguments either to advance or impugn notability. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Is it that you think that hasn't been established? -- Shunpiker (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what you read, but WP:INHERIT says "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." My understanding of this is that for the First Lady's Mom to have an article, she should have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right" such that she would merit an article even if her daughter and son in law weren't famous. She has only been covered because of her relatives, thus she fails this guideline. Come back when she does something other than be a mother, mother-in-law and grandmother. Maybe she will write a best-selling book or something, other than just be along for the ride. Mrs. Robinson's "flurry of press coverage" is exactly analogous to that given the baby of a celebrity. Edison (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - When you quote WP:INHERIT to say that the mother of the First Lady ought to have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right," you are quoting the section that pertains specifically to the children of famous people. It may also apply to parents, but it cannot apply to them in the same way, for the reason that the parent-child relationship is not at all symmetrical. The circumstances of being born to a famous parent doesn't in and of itself reflect on an individual. Children rarely have an active role in their parent's achievements, and in the case of a baby born to those who are already notable, no role whatsoever.
      - But the process of parenting a notable individual is not passive and circumstantial. To the extent that parenting plays a role in forming the history and the character of a notable individual, the parent has "done something ... in their own right." Whereas it is rarely arguable that the child shares responsibility for their parents' success, that's not the case for parents. Success or notoriety doesn't erase one's debts to one's parents. To the extent that the individual is the subject of significant personal or biographical study, the notability of the parent's contributions are magnified.
      - Whereas the section of WP:INHERIT that you quoted pertains specifically to children of notable people, where parents are concerned it reads, "parent notability should be established independently." And so it should. And that means (according to the general notability guideline) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
      - The "flurry of press coverage" which attends the birth of a baby to famous parents can't possibly meet that bar. The general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as sources that "address the subject directly in detail." Articles which contain only the description of an infant don't suffice. But biographical sketches of Marian Shields Robinson which have been cited from multiple reliable sources are "more than trivial," even if they are in some cases, "less than exclusive." There's nothing in WP:INHERIT (which, incidentally, is an essay -- not even a guideline) which impeach those sources or exclude them from establishing the subject's notability. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before looking at this article at all, I noticed a conundrum: WP:INHERIT is an essay, but WP:Notability (people) links to it to cite that notability is not inherited. I began a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#NOTINHERITED: Essay or guideline? advocating a fairly extensive revision of that guideline to fix this and other problems I perceived with it, and I'd encourage people to comment if they're interested. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable based on the ability to write a properly wikified article about her.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, but consider a merge. As I mentioned above, there is some uncertainty in the guidelines here, but the general idea is that the information in this article would undoubtedly be welcome to remain if merged into an article on Michelle Obama, Family of Barack Obama, or a hypothetical Family of Michelle Robinson Obama. The purpose of "articles for deletion" isn't to settle where or whether an article should be merged, so the result from this process should be to keep the article. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If George Obama gets his own page why not Marian Robinson. She is actually living in the White House.Therock40756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep — article is well-referenced, demonstrating notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.